Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Gamma in action

I got into a discussion yesterday with a gamma over at VP. The author of Graduating Gamma observed it throughout, and even offered a prediction that panned out almost precisely as he said it would. This was his summary:

G: Makes claim about a specific subject.

VD: Points out that G doesn’t know what the specific subject actually is.

G: Admits he probably doesn’t know. (Notice he didn’t concede that he didn’t know, just probably and it didn’t stop him from making shit up about it and sticking to it.) Pontificates, claims VD is avoiding an issue, and then restates the same point again (A) a slightly different way, and makes a new point (B).

G: Says he agrees with Another but asks a question trying to undermine Another’s point. Tries to expand (B) with more problems.

VD: Points out G is playing fast and loose with terms (Gamma trait) and will demolish him. Then asks yes/no question.

G: Brings up a completely and totally unrelated topic from 2011(!) which he thinks Vox was wrong about. Dodges yes/no question with qualifier.

VD: Demands the assertion from 2011 be backed up, points out the dodge, and asks again: yes/no.

G: Brings up more details about unrelated 2011 point and how G proved VD was wrong 4 years ago about something and it was “huge”. (Gammas don’t forgive or forget!) Dodges question again, asks VD what exactly is VD asking him to say.

VD: Points out G is wrong, asks another yes/no question about 2011 topic.

VD: Adds more info with relevant quotes.

VD: Responds that he’s trying to get G to simply answer a yes or no question.

G: Admits he paraphrased badly about 2011 topic. (No admittance about being wrong. Me Gamma. No wrong.) Takes three sentences to answer, finally “yes” on the first question.

VD: [At this point I pointed out that G was now denying things he'd already admitted, announced that I'm not interested in playing Pin the Gamma to His Own Words, and dropped it. - Vox]

G: In damage control now. "It's finished, that's cool. We can put it behind us, and here's why I'm still right."

Graduating Gamma author adds: It's kinda like I imagine drug addiction would be, while you are in the middle of it, you don't think that you are doing anything too wrong, or at the very least you can control it while the people around you are looking in pity and anger at your actions. If you notice [another Gamma] did the same thing, they are so scared of being ousted from the herd after an episode they blather on and try to engage on other subjects. They have the need to still be accepted.

The point I'm trying to make here, other than to try to help Gammas see how annoying their characteristically argumentative behavior is to everyone who witnesses it, is to show how readily recognizable this behavior is to others. Gammas seem to think they're being clever and devious by refusing to answer simple and straightforward answers, by hiding their obvious errors behind their own, newly made custom definitions of words, and inaccurately rephrasing the words of others. They also seem to think they're somehow getting away with it, but the fact is that they're not. Everyone sees it. And no one is fooled.

Seriously, it's now gotten to the point that I can often correctly identify a Gamma male by his use of a single phrase of five words. I'll let you all guess what it is before I let you in on it, but it is ASTONISHINGLY reliable. If someone uses this particular phrase, or some form of it, the chances are about 9 in 10 that he will very soon begin to exhibit characteristic Gamma behavior of the sort Graduating Gamma has described in detail for us.

UPDATE: Further to the point on Gamma behavior, Dr. Torch simply couldn't let it go.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Gamma in action: a witness writes a summary after observing the characteristic behavior of a Gamma male in discourse. http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/03/gamma-in-action.html …

Vox Day ‏@voxday now
@TorchDr Still at it, gamma boy? Fine, we can Omega you. You're done at VP.

He can call it a win if he likes. He can call me a coward if he likes. He can do whatever he wants, but regardless, he won't be commenting at VP again. This is an important lesson in submission for the Gammas of the world. If you don't learn to submit, then you're eventually going to be destroyed when you run into the wrong Alpha or Sigma, in whatever the relevant context is. Whether that means a physical beating, a firing, or just being silenced on a blog, it's almost always a consequence that could have easily been avoided.

The observable facts are that he picked the fight. Not me. He retreated from his earlier assertion. Not me. And I did not claim victory either, for that matter. I have neither respect nor time for any commenter who insists on behaving in this manner. If you can't answer straightforward answers or admit when you're wrong, you'd better not challenge me. I don't mind being criticized or challenged, but I have no tolerance for the endless Gamma dancing as they desperately try to preserve their self-image.

99 comments:

Been following this series of articles on "gammas". I've been engaged, checking in with this blog almost daily to see what comes next. I see both things I've done and such tendencies that I believe to be in me. Trying to change my evil ways by learning how to STFU. Thanks for the mirror.

" But if you're asking the question, you probably have some inkling of your own tendencies in this regard.

The question to ask yourself is: when shown to be wrong, do I appreciate being corrected or do I feel resentful and want to somehow avoid having to admit it?"

I don't usually resent people for correcting me, but I have a hunch that I am a failed Gamma.

I used to be called "professor" when in elementary school because of my above average intellect. (it is a "diverse" area and a 130 IQ is impressive here). What is notable is that I genuinely believed that I was unbeatable in a physical fight when giving my all and every time I got my ass kicked, I thought it was because of my mental weakness and lack of willpower. Some of the most embarrassing cases of me bitching out happened in this period. Like people punching me and making me their bitch with me not retaliating. My belief of invincibility was hilarious in that light.

Somewhere around age 13, a bunch of bullies started to torment my severely. Like beating me and whipping out their dick and clowning how he would put that into my mouth. (but obviously not serious about it) My closest friend back then motivated me to defend myself. It took me one year to do it, but I punked/beat the shit out of both of these fuckers. (btw, both of them muzzies) One of them I simply mouted and GnP'd into submission after a fight I had with my parents. I actually sought him out because I was mad. The same guy I pimpsmacked in a bus in front of my friends for getting fresh. He didn't do shit and left.

The other faggot actually tried to take my wallet and I fucking elbowed his face in. He gave me a meek kick to my leg and buzzed off.

After that, I started seeing everyone in a hierarchy of strong and weak and I accepted that there were people who could kick my ass. I also had my best victories in the yard/street after that.

tl;dr I was a full blown gamma due to superior intellect in comparison with my peers and thought It was within my means to beat anybody while being a coward. After I got bullied severely, I sacked up and dominated them/beat them up and never really looked back.

Been reading VP for almost 8 years now. I've never once seen him gloat or taunt someone who has admitted he was wrong. He's magnanimous and moves on. These gammas seem to think they'll be the butt end of ridicule by an AWCA and the Ilk for decades to come if they admit defeat, and they can't stand that thought. The saddest part is that they cannot see that their refusal and pride are what brings the ridicule, not the humility in concession. There's no growth, no learning, at all in their actions.

I'm not as astute as others when it comes to game, but I recognize this pattern with the employees under my supervision. In the past two weeks I had to provide constructive criticism to two of them. In both cases they were woefully prepared and performed badly. The first employee laughed and stated, "This isn't easy to hear but your right, thanks." He shook my hand and promised to do better. The other (who I treated much more gently due to his nature), went into a hissy fit, threatened to quit (which he has done on two other occasions), and then sent me a long email detailing how I was being insensitive to his needs while providing excuses on why the performance didn't meet standards. (I sent him home for the day and calm himself, and return when he could get his emotions under control). Never did he accept his critique or pledge to do better. But...he's a mate - so what can you do?

Just my 2c, but - the fact that you can admit those failures is the proof that you're no longer a Gamma. I find it quite inspirational, actually - seeing somebody recover from that mindset. Maintaining vigilance for Gamma behaviours is probably a good idea, but you sound like you're on an upward path. In addition to error-checking, it might be worthwhile to start considering different forward-movements for yourself.

As to the five words that identify the Gamma - these probably aren't them, but they're one of the tells I've been noticing:

"So let me see if I've got this straight-" followed by 5 minutes of him reitterating your points, wasting both your time.

This is a strategy Gammas employ to try and bore you. They wield their words like a blunt cudgel, bludgeoning your intellect with their endless pontifications. This is an effective strategy for covering up their own contradictions, because you become some bored of listening to them, that you don't remember everything they said. They "win" arguments by attrition, not by logic or rhetoric.

One interesting thing I've noticed, since you've started breaking this stuff down and talking about tactics, is how some Gamma commenters try to use the tactics themselves. But they don't understand them or when/how to use them, so they're like cargo-cult thinkers: "Oh, he says the way to defeat a Gamma is with ridicule, so I'll just ridicule those who oppress me before they can, and they'll look like the losers and I'll win!" Kinda sad, in a way.

Seriously, why would you ever keep someone like that around who isn't pulling his own weight?

Although he is a giant pain in my arse he is also the most gifted musician I have every worked with. He is also a friend, which is admittedly counter-productive to the supervisor-employee relationship, but I dearly love the guy. It has been a lesson in being assertive, and I catch myself because my initial reaction is always to treat him differently. It is a daily practice in the DESC method of being assertive (Describe, Express, Specify, Consequences). Describe - I have told you to properly train the sound board volunteers, and this past Sunday they made five major errors. It is clear that they don't know what they are doing. Express - I'm disappointed that you disregarded my instructions. Specify - In the future I expect all volunteers to properly monitor the sound, screen and lighting during services. Consequences - If you continue to have untrained volunteers work the system I will find someone who can properly prepare them.

"But they don't understand them or when/how to use them, so they're like cargo-cult thinkers"

EG: "Correlation is not causation."

Correlation is useless without an operative theory to explain the direction of the correlation (A>B, or B>A?) as well as the causal mechanism. The only time that the statement applies is if such a theory is lacking - this is seldom the case. It's only a useful phrase when somebody has assumed meaning behind a correlation, but never really thought it through. The Gamma employs it to dismiss your theory of causation, without directly addressing your theory of causation - and because they think it makes them sound smart.

Sometimes the causal theory behind a correlation is debatable (For example: does single motherhood cause criminality, or do criminal genes cause single motherhood in women?), but debating the theory often acknowledges that the correlation *is* causal, we juts don't know how - and that it's a justification for the prejudice that Gammas so desperately try and avoid (after all, if you can judge single mothers and bastards, you could judge them). The Gamma employs their 'intellect' at discrediting theories and corroding standards because they're terrified of being judged and being found wanting.

In addition to this observation was the teachable moment on how to successfully deal with a woman who, as we do, wanted to join in. She obeyed your "then stay out of it" - have you found this to be the normal response you get from women or just from women who have learned a thing or two about how to quell their instinctive response? A response which seems more in line with what Amy wrote above (replace gamma with woman):

These gammas seem to think they'll be the butt end of ridicule by an AWCA and the Ilk for decades to come if they admit defeat, and they can't stand that thought. The saddest part is that they cannot see that their refusal and pride are what brings the ridicule, not the humility in concession.

Perspective also helped me overcome gamma. It donned on me that I wasn't important enough to people for them to conspire against me. If I was getting the same shit from everyone, the problem wasnt them consciously undermining me.... the problem was me and what I was doing.

For all the discussion, I still have trouble visualizing just how a gamma acts. My good fortune to have little interaction with such people, perhaps. Online examples are instructive, of course, but I personally can't tell very much about how a person acts face-to-face from how they come off online.

Is there a well known fictional character that exemplifies gamma? Not a "gamma protagonist" like in that VP post, but a character that displays gamma behavior. Such a character could be a good aid to understanding. Like, I don't know, maybe... Dwight Schrute?

She obeyed your "then stay out of it" - have you found this to be the normal response you get from women or just from women who have learned a thing or two about how to quell their instinctive response?

I find women almost always do exactly what I tell them to do, on the rare occasions that I have occasion to give them orders. I did not know that the commenter to whom you are referring was a woman.

Women seem to instinctively recognize that I have no interest in currying favor with them, so they seldom try to play their usual influence games with me. I don't know if it is my tone of voice or because I tend to be curt with them, or if it is something else.

Not a fan of OJ, guys a scumbag but have to admit his response was alpha as fuck.

“I am going to make it my mission the kill your n----- a--,” said convict Travis Waugh, 51, last week, the Daily Mail reported, citing an unnamed source. "You will not leave here alive. Do you hear me?"

"I'm gonna stay right here and your a-- ain't gonna do nothing about it," the site reported.

Another article said OJ "laughed in his face"

Seems typical of a guy who has basically been the Alpha for so many years. Then again could just be a piece of theater he's putting on to get out of General Population and put somewhere more comfortable.

Markku, that actually helps a lot. I have seen behavior like that before, but I never connected it to "gamma". When thinking of people who act like the reporter in your clip I always refer to them as "worms".

1) Allows the speaker to claim that the lack of consensus is due to communication error.2) Implies without actively stating that the other party is in disagreement because of ignorance of the base proposition, and that overcoming that ignorance will result in the listener agreeing with the speaker.3) Can be used as a 'final word' that signals that the discussion is over, no further debate will be entertained, and that the listener is unreasonable for refusing to this one, tiny thing that is 'all i'm saying'.

Being wrong hurts to the Gamma, because his self image is built upon imagined intellectual superiority. Speaking for myself, my childhood was filled with teachers and administrators telling me how smart I was. Indeed, there was some truth to their assertions. In most any test given to me I was in the 99th percentile. So, to a Gamma like myself, there was external validation for all these claims.

Intelligence is not wisdom. Nor can the smart man be knowledgeable in all things. I could claim, for example, an expert understanding in matters related to the Byzantine (East Roman) Empire. This does not mean I am qualified to offer my opinions on video game development, excepting, of course, the instances where Byzantine history may be relevant to such (I lurk on Total War forums for this purpose).

The Gamma, nonetheless, cannot resist commenting on matters he knows little about. They've had so much smoke blown up their asses, that they honestly believe they are superior in all things intellectual. So when I have offered my opinion on automobile engines, in the past, I have been routinely smacked down because I am not an expert in them. The same person the Gamma angers by pretending to be an expert might very well have proven to be a helpful educator instead, were things approached differently.

Even rephrasing an opinion as a question is helpful.

Gamma: I think that the Toyota 5.7L V8 is superior to the Ford 3.5L Ecoboost.

Non-Gamma: I have heard that the Toyota 5.7L engine is better than the Ford 3.5L Ecoboost. Can anyone verify this?

The first starts an argument, the second starts a conversation instead.

Even in matters relating to things you are expert on, remember that greater experts probably exist. In my chosen work on Byzantine history there is John Julius Norwich who, despite his protestations of being distinctly amateur (humility is often the mark of a great man), knows more about the subject than almost anyone I have ever encountered. Were he to contradict me on something, I would seriously reevaluate my position.

Being wrong still bothers me, at some level. I have not excised all of my Gammaness yet. But getting to the point where I can override my emotional state and think about the matter rationally has been very helpful.

To any other Gammas, I can only offer this advice. When you are wrong, don't gloss over it, forget it or reframe it. Stop and say, out loud "I was wrong." Then move on. It won't be the first time, and it won't be the last.

@Trust"I was just kidding" looks like a good four-word Gamma tell, at least in the context you mention. Deltas say it too, but generally only if they accidentally pissed off or upset someone (as opposed to deliberately, like the Gamma).

I always thought the Gamma tell was, "Wow. Just wow." It's a tacit admission that they've lost which allows them to play it off as you being too dumb or extreme to deserve an answer. My guess for the five word phrase: "You can't seriously believe that."

When he gives you a "I'm going to quit" sepal, say; "I'm sorry to accept your resignation, please clean out your personal things and we'll work out the other details with HR". He quit, accept it. The fact that he's not pulling his weight is proof that he quit but he's still hanging around collecting a check. Getting a check for not working is called unemployment benefits or welfare. Allow him the dignity of correctly naming the source of his funds. Apparently he doesn't appreciate the current arrangement, which amounts to your charity at your employers expense.

If he back petals on the "I'm going to quit" nonsense and you still want to give him a chance, (your call here, I'm not encouraging you to give him one) lay down the law to him. If you are going to work here: 1. You will do XYZ, 2. You will not do ZXY, etc. IF you ever pretend you're quitting or otherwise presume to use our friendship to get out of pulling your weight you are no longer working here. Period.

Friends don't let friends engage in destructive behavior with out at least giving them a wake up call.

I would be interested in comments on the issue of reactions to being "proven wrong," but not agreeing with the assertion. I would bet VD considers he proved Nate wrong in the Inflation-Deflation debate, but they both still left holding their positions.

Nate did concede his point if things didn't change by a certain point, so it is not a perfect example, but that is the closest that jumps to mind.

"You're entitled to your opinion" is like "I disagree with you, but am too much of a bitch to debate you."

Meh, it's all context. Saying "You're entitled to your opinion" or some variant can be a good way to signal, EARLY IN THE CONVERSATION, that there is no point discussing something because it is entirely subjective. At that point, it is an acknowledgement of your inability to convince someone about some particular issue. OTOH, saying "you're entitled to your opinion" after you've been conclusively shown to be wrong or saying that to someone and then proceeding to attack their opinion is underhanded.

The gamma is compelled to protect everything he says, most especially when what he is saying does not inherently withstand the scrutiny of others. The Gamma doesn't seem to have the ability to separate his arguments from himself, so every attack on his argument is always perceived as personal.

This coupled with his deep sense of insecurity only serves to isolate him more from whichever group to which he is desperately trying to gain acceptance. The Gamma isolates himself to what must be a very lonely existence.

I must have King Solomon on the brain today:

"Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion" (Proverbs 18).

Even before you challenge someone...make sure you have the ability to answer questions straightforwardly and the humility to admit you are wrong if that is the case after you start challenging. That's how you win the war before you go into battle.

Do "alpha" males have trouble writing in plain English that people can understand? What the Hell do "VP" and "VD" mean? Also, you didn't define what a "gamma" is either.

You seem to be explaining how being "gamma" is bad (which is a wild stereotype), but then why would anyone ever be "gamma"? There must be some reason. You're not exploring both sides of the issue.

Here's an example: Republicans are politicians who believe in lower taxes. They believe that lower taxes will allow for greater economic growth. But Republicans are seen as bad (by Democrats) because they tend to give an unfair advantage to the rich/wealthy over the poor. It's not really clear which side is right, which is why there's a constant battle between the two.

It's my understanding that a "gamma" is simply an "alpha" with a conscience, which seems like a good thing. I.e. a "gamma" can get girls, but he won't date rape them like an "alpha" might because he appreciates that decent girls don't just want an aggressive guy to jump on top of them on the second date.

Your post reeks of the presumption of the moral high ground. You come here bitching out of the gate, complaining about the jargon of the group, which any literate person can learn from investing time on this site or the links on the right. You have no idea whether anyone here has explored both sides of the issue.

I can be this strident because I have explored many sides of the issue, including sexual and physical abuse, lack of social skills and character, and many more. Your understanding of gamma is shit. Most gammas are deeply wounded individuals who have an almost psychotic lack of introspection and can take no correction in stride and are much more likely to take by force the dubious fruits of the female anatomy since they only molest those they are sure to conquer by force. Alpha feels no compunction to take by force since he has a wealth of choice. I suspect it's that choice which galls you. It would much safer for you to be drunk with Robin Thicke than your Nancy boy friends.

At any moment you can humbly own what the fuck you want to say and how what is said here impacts you personally rather than attempting to shame us for your hurt feelings and you'll receive respect and understanding in kind.

There's a tag named "gamma" at the bottom of the OP. Click it and read. For the rest of your comment:

You seem to be explaining how "murderer" is bad (which is a wild stereotype), but then why would anyone ever be a "murderer"? There must be some reason. You're not exploring both sides of the issue.

Here's an example: Murderers are people who believe in freedom of action. They believe that freedom of action will allow for greater happiness. But Murderers are seen as bad (by citizens) because they tend to give an unfair advantage to themselves over others. It's not really clear which side is right, which is why citizens are constantly fighting the murderers.

It's my understanding that a "murderer" is simply a "citizen" who is honest about wanting what's best for himself, which honesty seems like a good thing. I.e. a "murderer" could manipulate people to stay out of his personal space, but he won't manipulate them into doing so the way a "citizen" might because he appreciates that decent people don't like being manipulated.

" I would bet VD considers he proved Nate wrong in the Inflation-Deflation debate, but they both still left holding their positions."

VD's position on the debate is probably similar to my own. We probaby both look back and wish we'd done some things differently... we probably both see shots we could've taken that in hind sight would've made the outcome more clear cut.

or maybe he hasn't given it a second thought.

The winner of the debate will be determined by who's prediction actually reflects reality. If you'll recall, while I am sticking to my guns on the timeline I gave, Vox disagrees with it. If hyper-inflation were to show up in 2018 VD would consider me to be right and would probably claim I won the debate. I on the other hand would have already conceded and would not consider accepting a belated victory.

"If you don't learn to submit, then you're eventually going to be destroyed when you run into the wrong Alpha or Sigma, in whatever the relevant context is. Whether that means a physical beating ..."

Submit or be destroyed??? By any chance are you a fan of Adolf Hitler?

My general view of authority is that I will respect someone (a) who doesn't create unnecessary rules and (b) whose leadership results in success. But I will not tolerate tyranny nor incompetence in someone in a position of "authority". If you want the right to command, then you must earn it and maintain it on a regular basis. Simply having a title is not enough.

Also, what kind of brutal, unevolved, dumb animal threatens a physical beating? Do you know how many people I hate in this world who I have no interest in being physically violent with? This is why feminists think all men are violent rapists. It's this propensity for physical confrontation when it's not even necessary. You're only feeding their fire.

I'm with agalltyr here... if physical force and crushing those that refuse to submit, does that make psychotic Omega shooters the ultimate Alpha? Is the socio-sexual hierarchy cyclical where bottom-of-the-barrel sociopath Omegas and Apex-Alphas are adjacent? If I get hit by a truck, is the truck driver more Alpha than me for defeating me in a battle of dominance? Sarcasm aside; stepping on the weak either creates monsters (Omega) or people that are passive-aggressive and delusional about their place in society (Gamma). This is just another way of giving the social justice warriors ammunition.

"If you don't learn to submit, then you're eventually going to be destroyed when you run into the wrong Alpha or Sigma, in whatever the relevant context is."

Is that what you want to tell the future generations: If a sadistic person that is physically more powerful or in a higher position of society; they can say whatever they want and if you happen to deny their word but not do a good job at it; they have a right to annihilate you. I thought our highly successful and critically acclaimed court system was here to prevent that. Despite hypergamy, Social Darwinism, struggles for dominance, etc. We do not live in a state of nature.

@Random NamingtonYou badly misunderstand. The idea isn't that you should always submit, but that you should know when to. Which is basically as soon as you've figured out you are wrong, or that you've joined a fight you don't particularly have the will or interest to go to the mat for.

agalltyr's basically picking fights that he can't imagine would actually ever result in a fight. Kind of like in the Simpson's when Homer finds that he can get free stuff by challenging people to a duel. It works great till he cut's in line in front of a southern gentleman using his dueling glove, and the gentleman accepts his challenge.

if physical force and crushing those that refuse to submit, does that make psychotic Omega shooters the ultimate Alpha? Is the socio-sexual hierarchy cyclical where bottom-of-the-barrel sociopath Omegas and Apex-Alphas are adjacent? If I get hit by a truck, is the truck driver more Alpha than me for defeating me in a battle of dominance?

No. No. No.

This is just another way of giving the social justice warriors ammunition.

Reality is what exists whether you believe in it or not. Deal with it.

Is that what you want to tell the future generations: If a sadistic person that is physically more powerful or in a higher position of society; they can say whatever they want and if you happen to deny their word but not do a good job at it; they have a right to annihilate you.

More or less, yes. It doesn't matter whether they have the right or not. They will.